In 1987, Dr. Allan Gray,
then
Director, Division of Dental Health Servicesfor the province of British
Columbia, Canada, published an article in theJournal of the Canadian Dental
Association (vol 10, 763-764) pointing outthat it was "time for a new
baseline." He pointed to the finding that toothdecay, as measured by DMFT
(Decayed,
Missing and Filled Teeth) rates werefalling "drastically" in
non-fluoridated
areas as well as fluoridated.Six years later, in 1993, Dr.
D. Christopher Clark, Associate Professor,Faculty of Dentistry,
University
of British Columbia, wrote in the samejournal (vol 59, 3, 272-279)
that "[T]he traditional thinking about the wayfluorides prevent dental
caries
has changed. Recent studies havedemonstrated that the role of
fluorides in the prevention of dental cariesis predominantly through
remineralization,
which is primarily aposteruptive phenomenon. The
primary effect from fluorides ispost-eruptive, not
pre-eruptive,
and more therapeutic than preventive."These "recent studies" are
represented
by those of Doctors O. Fejerskov andF. Manji of the Royal Dental
College, Aarhus, Denmark and Dr. A. Thylstrup,Royal Dental College,
Copenhagen,
Denmark and others such as Dr. J.M. TenCate of the Academic Center
for Dentistry, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.These European dental
scientists
contributed their views to aninternational symposium on
fluorides
that was held March 21-24, 1989 inPine Mountain, Georgia, U.S.A.
The proceedings of this Conference werepublished as a "Special Issue"
in the February 1990 edition (Vol 69) of theJournal of Dental Research.

Special Issue of Journal of
Dental
Research

In the same Special Issue,
Doctors
H. Kalsbeek and G.H.W. Verrips of theNetherlands Institute for
Preventive
Health Care reported on their studiesof dental caries prevalence
and the use of fluorides in different Europeancountries. They stated (on
page
731) that "no significant association wasfound between the availability
of fluoridated water and fluoridedentifriceand the DMFT in 12
year-old children." They found, also, that"[I]n most European countries,
the 12 year-old DMFT index is now(1985-1988) relatively low as
compared with figures from 1970-1974."Their findings agree with
those
found in the smaller population studied byDr. Gray in 1987. Does this
indicate a shift away from fluoridation on thebasis of new scientific
findings?
Is science the nemesis of fluoridation?Herschel S. Horowitz, of the
National Institute of Dental Research,National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, Maryland U.S.A., couldappropriately be called a
"crusader"
for the cause of fluoridation. Hesummarized (p760-764) his
concern
regarding the many factors that couldinfluence public acceptance
of the procedure. Horowitz classifies thefactors as "socio-political."

These factors are:1. The change in allocating
Federal (U.S.) funds to States that preventsthe "earmarking" of money for
fluoridation as opposed to "block funding" inwhich fluoridation must
compete
with other public health priorities;2. The perception by the
public
of dental fluorosis as a "problem" whenthey become increasingly aware
of the high incidence being reported;3. The publicity being given
to the results of studies such as the1986-1987 oral health survey
of U.S. schoolchildren which showed acontinuing decline in caries
prevalence in both fluoridated andnon-fluoridated groups, which
called forth a declaration, by thosereporting the data, that
"caries
is no longer a public health problem";4. The public's perception
that
fluoridation is environmental pollution;and5. The increase in public
anxiety
with regard to the many possible adversehealth effects.

Dr. Horowitz expresses his
exasperation
with the democratic process. "Insome localities," he writes,
"politicians are empowered to make suchdecisions (i.e., to
fluoridate)
but, frequently, in order to protect theirperceived reelection
potential,
they decide that a public vote should beheld on community water
fluoridation,
which, in effect, transfers theresponsibility to an
uninformed
or misinformed public."His opinion of those
professionals
who do not possess his zeal forfluoridation is not much
higher
than his perception of the public. "Thepublic and health care
practitioners,"
he writes, "are ill-informed ormisinformed about the value
and appropriate uses of fluoride, and about therelative benefits produced by
fluoride compared with other methodspromulgated for the prevention
of caries."Dr. Horowitz's first point
appears
to be an admission that the fluoridatershave had, in the past, a
potent
way to bribe financially strappedcommunities to add fluoride
to their water supplies. This "incentive" hasworked well in the past to tie
fluoridation in with Federal grants forupgrading community water
systems.
It is noteworthy that he is notmentioning any curtailment of
Federal funds that are used to promotefluoridation both in the U.S.
and abroad.

Fluorosis

His second point concerns
dental
fluorosis. This has long been painted as a"mild cosmetic" change in the
teeth of children and adults who were exposedto fluoride during dental
development.
There is sufficient understanding ofthe process underlying dental
fluorosis and the implication of depositionof fluoride in the skeleton
and soft tissues in papers that accompanyHorowitz's in the Special
Issue.Fejerskov states (p693) that
"[the clinical features reflect that fluoridegiven in low concentrations
over the long period of tooth developmentresults in various degrees of
enamel porosity (or hypomineralization)." Hecontinues, "[I]n its mildest
forms, the porosity is to be found in theoutermost enamel only, but the
entire tooth surface is involved. Withincreasing severity, both the
depth of enamel involvement and degree ofporosity increase. Assuming
a relatively constant exposure level (mostcommonly water-borne
fluoride),
all surfaces of a given tooth will beequally affected."In more severe forms of
dental
fluorosis" Fejerskov continues (p694), "thetooth erupts into the oral
cavity
entirely chalky white. The degree ofporosity (hypomineralization)
of such teeth result in diminished physicalstrength of the enamel, and
parts of the superficial enamel may breakaway."Dr. G. M. Whitford, of the
School
of Dentistry, Medical College of Georgia,U.S.A., well-known for his
work
on the metabolism and toxicity of fluorideand support of water
fluoridation,
has this to say about prevalence (p546)."There is a growing body of
evidence which indicates that the prevalenceand, in some cases, the
severity
of dental fluorosis is increasing in bothfluoridated and
non-fluoridated
regions in the U.S."Later, he continues, "This
trend
is undesirable for several reasons: (1) itincreases the risk of
esthetically
objectionable enamel defects; (2) inmore severe cases, it
increases
the risks of harmful effects to dentalfunction; (3) it places dental
professionals at an increased risk oflitigation; and (4) it
jeopardizes
the perception of safety and, therefore,the public acceptance of the
use of fluorides."In countries such as China and
India, that have large populations living inendemic fluorosis areas, the
various degrees of dental fluorosis are seenas a continuum with
accompanying
bone deposition which leads, in manycases, to crippling skeletal
fluorosis, paralysis and soft tissue disease.If dental fluorosis were to
be "officially" recognized as an "adverseeffect" by senior Government,
it would be "game over" for fluoridation as a"safety factor" would be
required
that would lower the EnvironmentalProtection Agency's (EPA)
Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinkingwater to 0.2 mg/L fluoride
(from
its present 4.0 mg F/L). This would bevery much lower than the
"optimal"
concentration of 0.7-1.2 mg/L fluoriderecommended for water
fluoridation.
This lower figure would be based on the2.0 mgF/L concentration
established
(by EPA) as the level to produce dentalfluorosis and a safety factor
of 10. In actuality, dental fluorosis isrelated to total ingestion of
fluoride of 0.75-1.0 mg fluoride per day(Whitford in The Metabolism
and Toxicity of Fluoride, Karger, 1989).It is of interest that a
recent
Canadian review, Inorganic Fluorides,carried out by the Ministries
of Environment and Health under the CanadianEnvironmental Protection Act
and published in 1993, declined to assesseither dental fluorosis or the
beneficial effects of fluoride in theprevention of dental caries,
the subject of Dr. Horowitz's third concern.Dental fluorosis, to sum up,
is a noticeable and undesirable cosmeticchange due only to the
influence
of fluoride on developing teeth. Becauseit is associated with damage
to the teeth and deposition of fluoride in theskeleton and soft tissues, it
is an adverse effect with psychological aswell as physical implications.The injury to the enamel,
described
by Fejerskov, must predispose towardcaries, not act as a
preventive.Dr. Horowitz and his
pro-fluoridationist
colleagues have good cause to beconcerned about recent studies
of effectiveness.

Cost Effectiveness

By the very nature of
statistical
science, selective, small scale studiescan show reductions in caries
as measured by the DMFT or DMFS (toothsurfaces) of 40% or better,
the figure used to calculate"cost-effectiveness." For
example,
a British Columbia study compared theDMFS of 109 children in
fluoridated
Kelowna and 93 children innon-fluoridated Vernon. The
DMFS of these 10 year-olds was 1.65 and 2.5respectively. The "benefit"
for the fluoridated group was 34%. But, thedifference was 0.85 of a tooth
surface! This is not clinically significantand is within "examiner error"
that has been shown to be, typically,between 15-20%. Dorothea F.
Radusch wrote in the Journal of the AmericanDental Association (28,
1959-62)
as long ago as December 1941 that this maybe as high as 74% for carious
tooth surfaces.When studies based on large
populations are reported honestly, "the truthwill out." Such is the case
with the 1986-87 oral health survey of U.S.schoolchildren (39,207
children
ages 5-17 years). This, as Horowitz pointedout, showed a continuing
decline
in caries prevalence in both fluoridatedand non-fluoridated groups.
Analysis of the data (obtained through theFreedom of Information Act)
by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, a well-knownbiochemist from Delaware,
showed
no significant differences in decay ratesof permanent teeth or the
percentages
of decay-free children influoridated, partially
fluoridated
or non-fluoridated areas. This study waspublished in Fluoride, the
journal
of the International Society forFluoride Research (vol 23, 2)
in April 1990.Analysis of the same data by
Doctors J. A. Brunelle and J. P. Carlos of theNational Institute of Dental
Research (NIDR) and published by the U. S.Public Health Service in
Health
Benefits and Risks February 1991, thepromoter's "Bible," showed a
"benefit" of 17.7% which is within bothmathematical error exhibited
in their paper (Yiamouyiannis) and within"examiner error" and is,
therefore,
not significant.Prof. Y. Imai of Japan studied
22,000 schoolchildren in 1972 in naturallyoccurring fluoride areas (nat)
and found increased caries with increasedlevels of fluoride. A study
of 23,000 elementary schoolchildren in Tucson,Arizona, by Dr. Cornelius
Steelink
in 1992, showed increased caries withincreased levels of fluoride
(nat) in drinking water as did Prof. S.P.S.Teotia of India who reported
on a study (nat) of 400,000 children from 1973to 1993.Dr. John Colquhoun found in
a study of 26,405 12-13 year old schoolchildrenin New Zealand, in 1989, that
those living in artificially fluoridatedareas had slightly more caries
than those living in non-fluoridated areas.Furthermore, both Colquhoun
and Steelink showed in their studies that therewas a definite positive
correlation
between low family income and theprevalence of caries. This was
independent of the level of fluoride indrinking water and whether it
was artificially added or occurred naturally.

Why is the public not
better
informed about this? Why do Dr. Horowitz andhis colleagues, especially in
the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland,Australia and New Zealand, the
major fluoridating countries, continue notonly to hang on to this
scientifically
bankrupt procedure but also topromote it actively.It is of interest to note that
dental researchers in largely unfluoridatedEurope no longer consider that
the systemic use of fluoride has a place inthe primary prevention of
tooth
decay. Some of these, consider that topicalapplication, under specific
conditions, may prevent caries formation by"remineralization" of
incipient
lesions.Fluoridation does not prevent
tooth decay but it contributes to dentalfluorosis and other adverse
health effects that will be discussed later.Can it be perceived as
environmental
pollution?

Environmental Pollution

Fluorine is the 13th most
abundant
element on earth. It is so volatile thatit is found in nature as
fluoride
in combination with other elements, suchas calcium, magnesium,
phosphates
etc.Fluoride is not an "essential
element" so far as human nutrition isconcerned. It is not
recognized
as such by the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) and has
never been demonstrated as "essential" byanimal experimentation.
However,
fluoride is essential for modern industry,the fluoride wastes of which
are responsible for pollution of the air, landand water.The fluoride placed into the
majority of drinking water supplies for thepurpose of increasing natural
levels, if any, to the "optimalconcentration" required by
fluoridation
is in the form of hydrofluosilicicacid or sodium silicofluoride.
These are waste products of the phosphorousand phosphate fertilizer
industries.
These products are obtained fromscrubbing factory stacks to
remove wastes such as sulphur hexafluoride thatwould, otherwise, cause
atmospheric
pollution.These products are introduced
into public drinking water systems withlittle regard to other
contaminants
that may be present such as lead,mercury, arsenic and
radionucleides.
In the US, a Water Chemicals Codexaddresses the Recommended
Maximum
Impurity Content (RMIC) for lead andarsenic but not radionucleide
levels.George Glasser, reviewing the
subject for the Sarasota Eco Report (Vol 4,No 12,) of December, 1994,
states:
"[A]nother coproduct from phosphatefertilizer manufacture is
yellow-cake
uranium. The radioactive coproduct isused in the manufacture of
nuclear
weapons and the nuclear power industry.The wastes from the
manufacture
of phosphate fertilizers are alsocontaminated with radium and
are among the most concentrated radioactivewastes produced from natural
materials. These radioactive wastes arereferred to as naturally
occurring
radioactive materials (NORM) and the EPAhas no regulations for NORM
waste disposal."Neither the publication
Toxicological
Profile for Fluorides, HydrogenFluoride and Fluorine (F),
prepared
for the U.S. Department of Health inDecember 1991 nor the Canadian
Government's 1993 review, InorganicFluorides, provide estimates
of the amount of fluoride entering theenvironment via the
fluoridation
of water supplies. The Canadian reportdoes contain sufficient
"clues"
to enable an estimate.The example of Tacoma
(population
250,400 (1990 census) in WashingtonState, gives an idea of the
amounts. Fluoride plants' monthly reports werecollected from the Tacoma City
Water Department. The data are recorded inUS gallons, pounds and
"short,"
or US tons.The daily amounts, on average,
are: 57,000,000 gallons of water processedthrough the system; 2,300
pounds
(1.15 tons) of hydrofluosilicic acid and4,100 pounds (2.05 tons) of
sodium hydroxide are added. Thehydrofluosilicic acid is
"commercial
strength," 24.20%. The daily amount offluoride ion added to the
water,
and therefore, into the environment, isestimated to be 424.62 pounds
(0.2 tons). Annual discharge ofhydrofluosilicic acid into the
Tacoma water system, on average, is 419tons. The annual amount of
fluoride
ion is 73 tons.It can be calculated that on
the basis of an intake of one pint of waterper day for children aged 0-11
years, the "target group" of fluoridation,as estimated by Dr. F.J.
McClure
in 1943 and Dr. J.S. Walker, in 1963,children consume about 0.06%
of the water supply. Therefore, 99.04% is usedexclusively to carry fluoride
elsewhere, largely through the sewer systemwhere it is a source of
pollution
to the environment.One can truthfully state that
"for every $1000 spent for fluoridationchemicals, less than fifty
cents
goes to children."

Fluoride Discharged into
Environment

On the basis of the Tacoma
data,
it can be calculated that for every onemillion persons living in a
fluoridated area, 292 tons of fluoride ions aredischarged into their water
supplies each year. For the population of 134million Americans the A.D.A.
states, who are on fluoridated water supplies,this is an estimated 39,000
tons of fluoride annually.The Canadian study, mentioned
previously, permits a calculation of 2000tonnes (1 tonne = 2240 lbs.)
of fluoride annually discharged into theenvironment from fluoridated
water supplies. This amount places this sourceof fluoride discharged in
water
second only to phosphate fertilizermanufacturing, but ahead of
chemical production, coal-fired power, primaryaluminum production, and
others
that are identified.Fluoride, in community water
systems, enters the environment in variousways. Surface runoff from fire
fighting, washing cars, watering gardens mayenter streams directly or
through
storm sewers at the "optimalconcentration" of one part per
million (ppm) or 1 milligram per liter(mg/L). Most enters during
waste
water treatment.T.T. Masuda reported in 1964,
after studying a large number of US cities,that concentrations of
fluoride
in sewage effluent in fluoridated citieseven after secondary treatment
was 1.16-1.25 mg/L. This compares to 0.38mg/L fluoride in unfluoridated
sewage effluent.Studies by L.L. Bahls,
reported
in 1973, and L. Singer and W.D. Armstong,in 1977, demonstrated that the
elevation of fluoride levels in sewageeffluent could persist for a
considerable distance, up to 16 km. in oneinstance.The promoters of fluoridation
argue that dilution reduces concentrationover distance. But, the amount
of fluoride is deposited in sediment, eitherlocally or, in the case of
rivers,
in the estuary. Fluoride in sediment maypersist for 1-2 million years.
It may recontaminate water if dredging takesplace. It also has a direct
toxic effect on sediment-dwelling organisms.Those responsible for the 1993
Canadian Government Review, InorganicFluorides, concluded that
inorganic
fluorides are entering the Canadianenvironment at concentrations
that may cause long-term harmful effects tobiota in aquatic and
terrestial
ecosystems.With regard to the effects on
aquatic organisms, the authors extrapolatelaboratory findings to the
field,
to yield estimated adverse effectsthresholds (lethal, growth
impairment
and decreased egg production) of 0.28mg/L fluoride for fresh water
species and 0.5 mg/L for marine species.These are exceeded by surface
runoff and sewage effluent from fluoridatedwater systems.The author of this article and
Anne Anderson published a review in Fluoride(Vol 7 No 4, 1994) showing how
effluent from fluoridated water systems inBritish Columbia and
Washington
State could be contributing to the loss ofsalmon species in the Fraser
and Columbia-Snake river systems. This couldbe attributed not only to
direct
toxic effects on all stages of fishdevelopment and their feed;
but also, to the inhibition of migration. Thislatter was shown by Drs. D.
Daemker and D.B. Dey in their study of the JohnDay Dam on the Columbia river
published in 1989.Fluoride is toxic in low
concentrations
to all living things. The authorsof the Canadian review, in a
section entitled "Ecotoxicity," present areview of the effect of
inorganic
fluoride, airborne in particular, onplants and animals, especially
herbivores.

Fluoride More Toxic than
Lead

Fluoride is known to be
more
toxic than lead and only slightly less toxicthan arsenic. Recently, in
1994,
N.P. Gritsan, G.W. Miller and G.G.Shmalkov reported their study
on the effect of various pollutants onabnormal plant development in
Southeast Ukraine. They found that among 17elements, including fluoride,
cadmium, lead and aluminum, fluoride was themost toxic.Since humans share the same
enzyme systems and DNA mechanisms as otherbiota and fluoride is a proven
enzyme and DNA repair inhibiting agent, whywould anyone think that humans
are immune from its toxic effects?Dr. Horowitz appears to be
more
concerned about the "increase in publicanxiety" that may lead to lack
of public acceptance of fluoridation, thanabout the possible adverse
effects
of fluoride on humans.In September 1994, the 20th
Conference of the International Society forFluoride Research was held in
Beijing, China. This Conference was jointlysponsored by the Ministry of
Health, People's Republic of China, the WorldHealth Organization and The
National Natural Science Foundation of China.In attendance were 200
researchers
from the host country and about 150 fromother countries.The major area of concern was
the prevalence of fluorosis in China. The"endemic fluorosis" areas of
China contain a population of 100 million. Ofthese, 43 million people have
dental fluorosis of all degrees of severity;2.4 million have skeletal
fluorosis,
a severe crippling disease with bonedeformities.The Chinese presented papers
using observations from studies of bothexperimental animals and
humans
showing the relationship between poor diet,especially calcium deficiency,
repeated childbirth and duration ofexposure, to the severity of
the effects of chronic fluoride poisoning.The Chinese reported not only
adverse effects on teeth and bones but alsothose involving soft tissues.
Some of these occur at surprisingly lowlevels of total fluoride
ingestion,
some of which were within the range oftotal intake reported for
fluoridated
areas of the U.S. and Canada.They presented evidence of
increased
fractures, poor fracture healing andbone outgrowths (exostoses)
as some of the skeletal effects.With regard to soft tissue
involvement,
studies were presented that dealtwith neurological lesions.
They
ascribed paralysis to direct action offluoride on the central
nervous
system in addition to the effect ofpressure on motor nerves by
encroachment of fluorotic bone. Studies alsoshowed that thyroid
dysfunction,
heart disease and abnormalelectrocardiograms and
cerebrovascular
disease were more prevalent in theendemic fluorosis areas.An association was shown
between
chronic fluoride intoxication and loweredintelligence as measured by
IQ tests; chromosomal abnormalities; decreasedimmunity; increased senile
cataracts;
and cancer.The Chinese scientists also
reported higher infant death rates due tocongenital abnormalities and
higher death rates generally in endemicfluorosis areas. They also
reported
variable synergistic effects betweenfluoride and aluminum,
fluoride
and arsenic, fluoride and selenium.The foregoing would almost
appear
to be the table of contents of Dr. JohnYiamouyiannis' book, Fluoride,
the Aging Factor (Health Action Press,Delaware, Ohio), and the older
publication, Fluoridation, the GreatDilemma, by Drs. George L.
Waldbott,
Albert W. Burgstahler and H. LewisMcKinney (Coronado Press,
1978).Dr. Horowitz and his
colleagues
can be expected to attempt to refute thisevidence of the potential harm
from fluoridation by arguing that theendemic fluorosis areas in
China
are largely rural and that the people areimpoverished, with poor
nutrition,
especially calcium deficiency. Theywould also point to the higher
levels of fluoride in water, 2.5-5 mg/L, andto additional sources of
fluoride
such as coal burning for cooking and fordrying corn, wheat and millet.
They would deny that these adverse effectsoccur in the US where
fluoridation
has been practiced since 1945.To do this successfully, they
would have to refute the many studiespublished in peer-reviewed
journals,
that show that in the US there is asignificant relationship
between
residence in fluoridated areas and most ofthe problems described by the
Chinese.These studies show increases
in chromosomal abnormalities such as Down'sSyndrome (mongolism) as
demonstrated
by Dr. Ional Rapaport in 1954 and1957. They show, also,
increased
overall cancer deaths, (Drs. Dean Burk andJohn Yiamouyiannis, 1977); and
deaths from osteosarcoma, a rare bonecancer, in young men reported
by Dr. R. N. Hoover and others in 1991 andDr. P.D Cohn in 1992.The studies on osteosarcoma
were inspired by the finding of the US NationalToxicology Program in 1989
that
there was a dose-related relationshipbetween fluoride and
osteosarcoma
in male rats. The study found, also, arelationship between fluoride
and an extremely rare form of liver cancer inthe experimental animals as
well as cancers of other areas such as themouth. When the findings were
"peer reviewed," the conclusions were termed"equivocal," a term that gave
rise to the controversy that continues tothis day.

Fluoridation and Hip
Fractures

They would also have to
refute
the studies that show a higher incidence ofhip fracture in residents of
fluoridated areas. This includes U.S. studiespublished in the Journal of
the American Medical Association (JAMA) by Dr.S.J. Jacobsen in 1990 and
Christa
Danielson and others in 1992.Studies from abroad have shown
the same relationship between fluoridationand hip fractures: Dr. C.
Cooper
(UK) in JAMA, July 24, 1991 and Dr. J.Colquhoun, New Zealand Medical
Journal, August 1991. There are also studiesshowing the effect of low
concentrations
of fluoride on the immune systemsuch as that in Complementary
Medicine, 1992, by Dr. Shiela L. M. Gibson ofthe Glasgow Homeopathic
Hospital.
There are studies from India whereendemic fluorosis is a major
public health problem. Publications from thiscountry cover many aspects for
which their extensive literature must beconsulted. One important area
of research in India deals with one of themost frequently encountered
symptoms that occurs long before skeletalfluorosis becomes clinically
obvious ­p; gastrointestinal discomfort.Outstanding work on this has
been carried out by Dr. A.K. Susheela and herco-workers at the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. One ofher papers, published in
Fluoride
(Vol 25, No 1) 1992 shows, by means ofphotographs taken through an
endoscope, the unhealthy appearance of stomachmucosa when it is exposed to
very low concentrations of fluoride.These texts should be
consulted
for further examples of scientific studiesthat counter the false notion
that fluoride, even at optimal concentration,is without harm. Those
individuals
and institutions that promotefluoridation have by their
actions,
created endemic fluorosis in the US,Canada and other countries
that
have adopted the practice.Like China, before
defluoridation,
43% (or more in some studies) ofchildren in these fluoridated
areas exhibit dental fluorosis. Is itpossible that 2.4% of the
public
have largely unrecognized skeletalfluorosis? How many deaths
from
congenital abnormalities could be laid atthe doorstep of fluoridation?How many tons of antacids are
consumed by North Americans for "functionaldyspepsia" (that is, stomach
ulcer pain without demonstrable ulcers) causedby drinking fluoridated water
and beverages?People living in endemic
fluorosis
areas, such as China and India,frequently exhibit as "early"
signs of the development of later skeletaldeformity, back stiffness
along
with joint and tendon pain. How manypersons residing in
fluoridated
areas have these symptoms caused byfluoride? How many are
misdiagnosed
as "repetitive stress syndrome,""tendonitis" or "arthritis"
of unknown type or cause?

Physicians Have Low Index
of
Suspicion

That we do not have a full
picture
is due to two major factors.The first, is that physicians
(and other health professionals) have a lowindex of suspicion that
fluoridation
could be associated with disease. Theyhave been assured by the
promoters
that fluoride is safe and they cannotfind fluoride listed in the
commonly used texts in the differentialdiagnosis of various related
diseases; for example, articles dealing with"functional dyspepsia,"
thyroid
dysfunction, arthritis etc. do not presentfluorosis as a possibility.Second, the reason that we,
in the U.S. and Canada do not see as many ofthe deformed and damaged teeth
and severe bone deformities as in countriessuch as China and India may
be owing to our good fortune in having adequatedietary calcium, magnesium and
vitamin C, the deficiencies of which havebeen demonstrated to increase
severity of fluorosis.Dr. Albert Schatz reported on
the increased infant death rates due tocongenital malformations in
Chile that were associated with waterfluoridation. In his paper,
published in the Journal of Arts, Science andHumanities in January 1976,
he made the following statement:"The large scale, overall
statistical
studies which compare totalpopulations in fluoridated and
control cities in the United States actuallyconceal the very information
that is purportedly being sought. This occursbecause the relatively
well-nourished
majority numerically overwhelms thosegroups in the undernourished
minority which are the most susceptible tofluoride toxicity."When are in-depth studies
going
to be carried out on the adverse effects offluoridation in the population
of our own "third world," the impoverishedliving in the slums of
fluoridated
cities in the US? When is Canada goingto do likewise?The Canadian Government review
of inorganic fluorides, after condemningfluoride as a threat to both
aquatic and terrestial plant and animal lifeand possibly affecting global
warming, nevertheless adopt the view of thepromoters that "inorganic
fluorides
(i.e., fluoride ions) are not enteringthe environment in quantities
or conditions that may constitute a danger tohuman life or health." The
reader
may recall that those responsible forthis study deliberately
avoided
discussion of dental fluorosis in humans(although they did present it
as a problem in their discussion ofherbivores).The authors of the Canadian
review state that, in spite of theirconclusions, they cannot
lightly
dismiss the implications of thedose-response trend in the
occurrence
of osteosarcoma in rat experiments.They also express reservations
regarding the potential of adverse effectsupon human reproduction,
development,
the central nervous and immunesystems; but only at levels
required to produce skeletal effects.

Poor Nutrition Increases
Risk
of Fluoride Toxicity

In both countries, there is
cause
for concern about the relationshipbetween poverty and poor
nutrition
and what we know about its increasingthe severity of fluoride
intoxication.In the US, a Report issued
January
30, 1995 by the privately fundedNational Center for Children
in Poverty stated that "more than a quarter ofAmerican children under age
6 were living in poverty in 1992." This is 6million children. How many of
these live in fluoridated cities?In Canada, the Canadian
Institute
for Child Health, a nonprofitorganization funded in part
by Health Canada, reported, in 1994, that 21%of Canada s children, 1.2
million,
live in poverty.It is ironic that the poor are
the group that are frequently pointed to asbeing best served by
fluoridation.
This is very wrong on several counts.First, these are the most
vulnerable
to severe adverse health effects ofall types. Second, if we were
to accept the most recent rationalization forfluoridation, to establish the
means for "remineralization," the poor arethe least likely to meet the
preconditions laid down by such advocates asDrs. G. Rolla, D. Gaare and
Bogaard of the Dental Faculty of Oslo, Norway.These researchers write in
their
abstract on page 158 of the Proceedings ofthe Beijing Conference: "It
can be concluded that fluoride is mosteffective in subjects with
reasonably
good, but not necessarily perfect,oral hygiene."Without the means to pay for
dental care, it is hardly likely that thechildren of the poor,
especially
the "working poor,'' would employ oralhygiene to the standard
described
by Dr. Rolla et al.Nation's Health, the official
newspaper of the American Public HealthAssociation, one of the
organizations
that continue to endorsefluoridation, contains a
relevant
item in its issue for January 1995. Thenewspaper reports the findings
of a study conducted at Harold WashingtonElementary School in Chicago.
This study involved 128 first, second, thirdand fourth grade graders that
were given oral examinations in November 1993and June 1994."During the initial exam," the
article relates, "dentists found 135cavities. Parents were
notified
and given names of public aid dentists.However, when dentists
conducted
the second exam seven months later, theyfound 127 cavities,
representing
both untreated cavities found in the firstexam and new cavities.
Altogether
23 students experienced an increase incavities, while 32 experienced
a decrease, meaning they received dentaltreatment. The remaining
students
experienced no change."The author of the study, Susan
Diamond MS, RD, concluded that many studentsat this inner city elementary
school have never visited a dentist's office.She observed that only the
occurrence
of pain alerts many students' parentsto bring them to the dentist.
She attributes the low priority of dentalcare to lack of dental
instruction
at school and in the home. "Manystudents," she is quoted as
saying, "do not own tooth brushes, and othersmust share them with family
members." We must add that Chicago, accordingto the U.S.P.H.S. Fluoridation
Census, 1985 has been fluoridated to 1 ppmsince November 1968.In order that the foregoing
is not interpreted as an endorsement of thetopical use of fluoride, the
reader is invited to look up the paper ofKalsbeek and Verrips presented
in Georgia in 1989 where they found nosignificant relation between
the decline in caries and the availability offluoridated water or fluoride
dentifrices. Other investigators havereported similar findings: Dr.
M. Diesendorf, who presented a study inNature (July 1986) involving
eight developed countries over a period of 30years; and, Dr. John Colquhoun
who reported in New Zealand Environment in1991 that study of dental
caries
over time in New Zealand showed that asharp decline was in evidence
before fluoridation and before theavailability of fluoridated
tooth paste.

Toxic Dose is Probably 5 mg

Furthermore, some methods
of
applying topical fluorides to the teeth ofchildren may be
life-endangering.
Dr. G. M. Whitford's paper presented tothe Georgia symposium and
included
in the "Special Issue" of the Journal ofDental Research, concluded
that
the "probable toxic dose" (PTD) isapproximately 5 milligrams
(mg)
of fluoride for each kilogram (kg) of bodyweight (1 kg =2.2 lbs).For a 2 year-old child
(average
weight 11.3 kg) the PTD is 57 mg. Thisquantity, according to
Whitford,
is contained in 57 grams (2 ounces) of a1000 ppm fluoride tooth paste,
38 grams of 1500 ppm tooth paste, 248milliliters (mL) (8 ounces)
of a 0.5% sodium fluoride mouth rinse and only4.6 mL (less than 1 teaspoon)
of 1.23% Acidulated Phosphate Fluoride (APF)gel.A young child is expected to
hold this highly toxic (12,300 ppm) material,poured into 2 trays of 2.5 mL
each, for 5 minutes. How many parents aretold by the dentist that if
the child were to swallow the APF gel, he coulddie?Whitford's Probable Toxic Dose
may be lowered in the future. A masspoisoning with fluoride from
a faulty water system in Hooper Bay, Alaska in1993 indicated that the PTD
may be as low as 0.3 mg of fluoride per kg bodyweight. The implication of
this
finding should be clear.If these facts concerning the
possible adverse health effects of fluoridewere to become known to the
general public, it should increase the "publicanxiety" that worries Dr.
Horowitz
and his fellow promoters. So far, littleinterest has been shown by the
press. To the contrary, the media dutifullyrepeats verbatim the press
releases
put out by the endorsing agencies suchas the American and Canadian
Dental Associations (CDA and ADA).A good example is the
treatment
accorded the 50th Anniversary offluoridation. The press
release
from the ADA with its dateline "Chicago,January 24,1995" bears the
caption:
50 Years of Fighting Tooth Decay withFluoride: 1945-1995. "On
January
25, 1945," the text begins, "Grand RapidsMichigan embarked on a
trend-setting
study and became the first communityto adjust the amount of
fluoride
in its water to an optimum level."The press release makes the
statement that "more than 134 million Americansacross the country are served
by water supplies where the fluorideconcentration has been
adjusted
to the optimal level for dental health. InGrand Rapids in 1945 before
fluoridation, better than 99% of the childrenexamined experienced dental
decay. After the famed 'Grand Rapids Study',dental decay plummeted 65%."Let us take a closer look at
this landmark event. Prior to 1945, a searchtook place for the cause of
dental staining in states such as Colorado andTexas. During the course of
study, observations were made that thisdisfigurement appeared to
confer
some type of increased resistance todental caries. The causative
agent for the tooth discoloration ("mottling")was discovered to be fluoride
naturally occurring in drinking water.A number of studies of this
reported phenomenon were undertaken. The mostimportant of these was the
study
of 21 U.S. cities by Dr. H. Trendley Deanof the U.S. Public Health
Service.
These studies would not be given muchcredence today; they would not
pass through the gates of peer review toenter the scientific
literature.
Dean's work, in particular, that is stillpointed to as the "classic"
basis for the fluoridation hypothesis, did notmeet even Dean's own criteria
for constancy of water supply. Mathematicalerrors abound. "Variation" and
"examiner error," the latter well-known toDean, negated the results.Dr. F.B. Exner, of Seattle,
a Radiologist who became an internationalauthority on fluoride and
strong
opponent of fluoridation, prepared areport for the City of New
York
in 1955 entitled Fluoridation of PublicWater Supplies. This was an
analysis of the published studies of Dr. F.J.McClure and Dr. H. Trendley
Dean, both of whom were "pioneers" in the earlydays of research on the dental
effects of fluoride. Exner described theirreports as being unscientific
and inaccurate. Exner even suspected fraud.It was, perhaps, inevitable
that Dr. Exner was given the opportunity to aidMr. Kirkpatrick Dilling in his
questioning of Dr. Dean, under oath as awitness in a suit to enjoin
fluoridation of Chicago's water supply(Schuringa et al. vs City of
Chicago) in 1960.Dr. Dean was forced to admit
that the studies of Galesburg, Quincy,Monmouth and Macomb and the
studies of 21 cities with 7,257 children didnot meet his own criteria and
were, therefore, worthless. Of course, thisrevelation took place 15 years
after the trials began; but it is difficultto believe that there were not
those in high positions in the U.S.P.H.S.,including Dean himself, who
recognized the defects in these studies.Dr. Philip R.N. Sutton, of the
Dental School of the University ofMelbourne, in his monograph
Fluoridation, Errors and Omissions inExperimental Trials (Melbourne
University Press 1959, 1960), pointed outthat the trials which took
place
not only in Grand Rapids but also inNewburgh and Evanston in the
U.S. and in Brantford, Canada, constitute themain experimental evidence
that
has led to fluoridation as a public healthmeasure.The hypothesis that was to be
tested was that "a concentration of about 1part per million of fluoride
in the drinking water, mechanically added,inhibits the development of
dental caries in the user."

Criteria for a Proper Trial

To carry out such a study
properly,
certain conditions must be met. First,the investigator must select
the participating communities with a view toensuring that when two groups,
fluoridated and non-fluoridated are to becompared, the water supply to
both the trial population and the controlpopulation must be similar in
all respects except for the mechanicallyadded fluoride. If it is
desirable
to compare the results of mechanicallyfluoridated water at 1 ppm
with
the results from a naturally fluoridatedwater supply it is important
that the latter also be at a concentration of1 ppm and that the analysis
of both water supplies are similar with regardto other components such as
calcium, magnesium etc.Second, the populations under
study must be similar in all importantrespects: age, socioeconomic
status and, if it is significant, racialcomposition. It should go
without
stating that residence in either the testarea or the control area must
be constant.Third, such a trial, if it is
to mean anything, must be of sufficientduration to measure the dental
status of permanent teeth after exposure forat least a "10 year lifetime.''Fourth, the common-sense
"rules"
of research must be followed. Attentionmust be paid to the size of
the sample population. There must be uniformityin what is measured; for
example,
DMFT. Examinations of both the testpopulation and the control
population
must be undertaken before the trialbegins and at predetermined
intervals. Mathematics must be accurate and theresults corrected for
"variation"
and "examiner error."Finally, as in any study of
the possible effect of any treatment,statistical methods must be
used to evaluate whether the results obtainedare due to "chance" or to the
treatment, in this case fluoride at 1 ppm indrinking water.Dr. Sutton's study of the
fluoridation
trials is meticulously documentedwith reference to the written
reports prepared by the investigators and anexamination of data that was
made available. On publication, the AustralianDental Association sent copies
to each of the principal investigators forreview. The second edition
(1960)
contains a section in which these reviewsare reprinted and the
objections
are answered by Sutton.In general, not one of the
experimental
trials met the criteria presentedpreviously. Each had one or
more errors or omissions that invalidate anyresults that are purported as
being supportive of the hypothesis. Thefollowing deals superficially
with the defects. Sutton's work must beconsulted for details.

Grand Rapids Study

Grand Rapids had Muskegon
for
its control. There were large differences insample size so that
variability
was high. In the test city, for example,samples varied from 1,806
children
to 3; in the control, in 12 categoriesless than 20 children were
examined.
One "group" in the control cityconsisted of one child. This
grossly affects the reliability of a meanrate.Different methods of sampling
were used and changes in examiners took placewith no assessment of examiner
variability. The first examination of cariesin Muskegon did not take place
until after Grand Rapids was fluoridated.This was a poor beginning.Finally, the coup de grace,
the control city Muskegon, was fluoridated inJuly 1951, six and one-half
years after the commencement of fluoridation inGrand Rapids. This rendered
Muskegon useless as a control and occurred at atime when few of the permanent
teeth had erupted in the fluoridated testcity.The promoters of fluoridation
have stated repeatedly that "at MuskegonMichigan, the control city
where
fluoride-free water is used, the incidenceof dental caries is
unchanged."
Sutton points out that some of thosepresenting this statement in
1954 and 1955 seemed unaware that theexperiment had ended in 1951
with the fluoridation of the control.But, was this statement true?
The authors of the study (Arnold et al.),mentioned, according to
Sutton,
that "a similar comparison (to GrandRapids) of results at Muskegon
shows the percentage reduction to range from1.5% in 6 year olds to a high
of 15.5% in 11 year olds in the permanentteeth. The percentage
reductions
used were obtained by expressing thedifference between the most
recent and the original DMF rate as apercentage. Variations in DMF
rates obtained in intervening years areignored. If the results for
Muskegon had been computed in 1946 instead of1951, the reduction would have
been 40.7% instead of 1.5% in the sixyear-old group, and 32.7%
instead
of 15.5% in the 11 year-old children.The Grand Rapids trial did
nothing
to support the case for the fluoridationhypothesis. The children of
both artificially fluoridated Grand Rapids andthe fluoride-free control,
Muskegon,
experienced a decline in dental cariesduring the period of the trial
from January 1945 to July 1951.This should come as no
surprise
today in the light of the studies ofKalsbeek and Verrips,
Diesendorf,
Gray and Yiamouyiannis mentionedpreviously in this review.Several questions arise. Was
Muskegon's water fluoridated to terminate theexperiment because it was
discovered
that DMF rates were declining in bothcities? Why did "reputable"
members of the dental profession repeat toaudiences in major dental
meetings
that there had been no change inMuskegon when they should have
known the facts? Why did some of theseappear to be unaware that the
trial had been terminated?The "result" stated in the ADA
press release of a reduction in tooth decayin Grand Rapids as a result
of fluoridation is deceptive advertising. Theauthors should be brought to
account by the authorities. The same order ofdecline may have been
demonstrated
for Muskegon if a properly constructedstudy had been allowed to run
its course!

Other Trials

The Evanston, Illinois
study
with Oak Park, Illinois as control, got off toa bad start. A United Kingdom
Mission (1953) that studied the Evanstontrial observed that in
Evanston
the economic level was high and dental carewas "outstandingly good." But,
comparison of the caries rates beforefluoridation showed that the
control area, Oak Park, was found to have alower caries rate than
Evanston.Sutton uses 21 pages of his
73-page original report to attempt to come toan understanding of the many
manipulations of the student groups that tookplace, in order to compensate
for the lower caries rates encountered in thecontrol throughout the test
period.The United Kingdom Mission was
informed that yearly examinations had beencarried out since the
commencement
of fluoridation on February 11, 1947 andwould be continued until 1962.
At the time of the UK Mission report, noexamination of the control
city
had taken place (since February 26, 1947);and, in Evanston, only one age
group was examined each year. Sutton pointsout that the design of the
trial
provided for only two examinations, 11years apart, to be made in the
control city.The second examination,
scheduled
for 1958, was commenced in 1956 when itwas apparent that the water
supply of Oak Park would be fluoridated. Thisexamination was completed
November
1956 soon after the fluoridation of OakPark on 1 August.The data from this study were
not published for 10 years. Much of the datahad not been released at the
time of Sutton's book in 1959!The authors reporting on this
study made incompatible statements regardingsample size and what Sutton
describes as "extraordinary changes of opinionregarding the significance of
results based on the same data.''Of some note is the evidence
in the data of the effect of fluoride indelaying tooth eruption. The
results of examinations carried out inEvanston 1946-1951 suggest a
progressive decline in the number of eruptedfirst permanent molar teeth
in six year-old children. The results obtainedin examinations conducted in
1953 and 1955 were omitted from the publishedreports.Brantford, Ontario, Canada was
the site of two independent trials. One wasconducted by the City Health
Department, the other by The National Healthand Welfare Ministry. There
were so many mathematical and other errors inthe City report that its
results,
as Sutton states, must be treated withcaution. The National Study
is reputed to be the most complete of the10-year North American trials.Again, a bad start. The trial
began over two and one-half years after thecommencement of fluoridation
of the Brantford water supply. Thoseresponsible for the study
probably
reasoned that little change was to beexpected in DMF rates until
about six years after the commencement offluoridation - the so-called
"structural theory" popular at the time thathas now, as indicated by the
ADA Press Release, been replaced by the"remineralization"
rationalization.Sarnia, Ontario was selected
as the "fluoride-free" control and Stratford,Ontario as the control city
with natural fluoride to 1.3 ppm.The City of Brantford, over
a period of 15 years, had provided more freedental services for children
than most Canadian cities. As a result, thechildren of Brantford compared
to those in the controls had both a highertreatment and a better oral
hygiene status. This was recognized by theauthors of the report.No pre-fluoridation survey was
carried out in this study. The initialexamination in 1948, not
surprisingly,
showed that tooth mortality (teethwhich are missing or which
must
be extracted) was much higher in thecontrols.As in the other studies, there
are marked deficiencies and omissions in thecompilation and reporting of
data. This, along with the absence of cariesrates in Brantford and Sarnia
prior to fluoridation, makes it impossible toestablish that there was a
marked
reduction in the test city due tofluoridation.The City of Newburg,, New York
was the test area; Kingston, New York wasthe "fluoride-free" control.
These two cities situated on the Hudson Riverabout 30 miles apart were said
to be comparable in all ways, includingcomparable water supplies,
except
that Newburg's would have an addition ofsodium fluoride.Again, as in other studies,
the control city had no examinations untilafter fluoridation started in
the test city on May 2, 1945.However, the major problem was
that the water supplies were not comparable.The source of Newburg's water
was surface water; Kingston's was obtainedfrom mountain spring
impounded.
Analysis carried out by the US GeologicalSurvey showed them to be of
vastly different composition. The water inNewburgh (N) had much higher
values than Kingston (K) in the following:calcium (N 35.0 ppm, K 6.6
ppm),
magnesium (N 3.6 ppm, K 0.9 ppm) andhardness (N 102 ppm, K 20.0
ppm). Eight other characteristics of Newburghwater were at least 4 times
higher than those of Kingston.A 1949 statement from the
American
Waterworks
Association (quoted bySutton) is to the effect that
the experimental verification of thefluoride-dental caries
hypothesis
"obviously necessitates the use of anearby 'control' city with a
water supply comparable in all respects tothat to which fluoride is
being
added."In spite of this the study
proceeded
with, as Sutton describes it, a widevariation in the methods used
in data collection and result presentation.There were changes in
examiners
and statisticians. The study was alsoconfounded by uncertainty with
regard to shifts in the population of boththe test and control areas.The final report of the study
(1956) found a decrease in the "percentdifference" between the DMF
rate per 100 erupted teeth of children aged sixto nine years in Newburgh and
Kingston compared to the previous (1955)report. A trial period of 10
to 12 years was originally mentioned in thefirst report of the study.
Sutton
states that "in view of the decrease inthe 'percent difference'...it
is unfortunate that the trial was stopped assoon as the minimum period
proposed
by the authors had elapsed."In May 1989, Dr. J. V. Kumar
and others of the New York State Department ofHealth, published a study of
the current situation in Newburgh and Kingstonin the American Journal of
Public
Health (Vol 79, 50). Their analysis ofdental caries data revealed
that caries prevalence declined in bothNewburgh and Kingston. The
difference
in terms of DMFT for 7-14 year oldchildren was shown graphically
to be less than one tooth; i.e., Newburgh1.5, Kingston 2.0. This is
probably
within examiner error and notsignificant. They pointed out
the confounding effect of other sources offluoride such as fluoride
drops,
tablets and dentifrices that havecontributed to dental
fluorosis
in the children of both cities.It is not difficult to imagine
the reception that Sutton's monographencountered in some circles.
He records in an editorial in the January 1990issue of Fluoride that the
distributors
of the book were approached by theNutrition Foundation and
others
to suppress the monograph in the U.S.A. Inaddition, the printer's type
of edition was destroyed without authority. Henotes, also, that his book was
omitted from the Index to Dental Literaturepublished by the ADA.Dr. Sutton adds, almost as a
footnote, that in 1984 emphasis was shifted bythe World Health Organization,
a major promoter, from the Newburgh etc.trials to the further 128
studies
listed in a book written by Murray andRugg-Gunn in 1982. Sutton
investigated
the scientific status of theirreferences in 1988. His
conclusion:
"Murray and Rugg-Gunn, in what appearsto have been a comprehensive
worldwide search, were unable to locate evenone study which demonstrated
that fluoridation reduced dental caries."Why, after the expenditure of
what must have been millions of dollars anduncountable man-years has it
been impossible to demonstrate proof of thefluoridation-caries hypothesis?

Fluoridation Does Not
Prevent
Caries!

The answer is simple:
fluoridation
does not prevent dental caries!Dr. Rudolph Ziegelbecker,
Director
of the Institute for EnvironmentalResearch, Graz, Austria, ran
through his computer the results of allpublished studies of the
relationship
between fluoride in water and dentalcaries. These studies included
Trendley Deans' 21 cities and 23 others. Hereported in Fluoride in 1981
that he found no relationship.Ziegelbecker followed up this
study on what he felt were selected data,with data from the World
Health
Organization's (WHO) Oral Health Data Bankand Oral Health Pathfinder
Study.
Using these data, collected in 1987, heagain contradicted the reports
that there was an inverse relationshipbetween dental caries
incidence
and water fluoride levels. His findings,reported in Fluoride (Vol 26,
No4) October 1993 pointed out that in mostcountries the relationship
tends
to be direct rather than inverse; that is,dental caries increases as
water
fluoride increases.This finding conflicts with
the belief of the promoters of fluoridation;but it is in accord with other
studies, some of which were mentionedpreviously. Noteworthy in this
respect are those of Imai (Japan), Colquhoun(New Zealand), S.P.S. and M.
Teotia (India) and Steelink (USA).Ziegelbecker adds the studies
of S.K. Ray et al. in India (1981) and O.Chibole in Kenya (1988).Let us return again to the
A.D.A.
press release. The manipulated numericalvalues (one hesitates to call
them statistics) that are used in the pressrelease are reminiscent of
those
seen in such advertisements as: "Three outof four Doctors prefer Camel
cigarettes," or, more recently "choose Tylenolover Aspirin.""Half of the children entering
first grade today have never had a singlecavity." This may be true; but
as may be seen from studies of caries overtime, this has nothing to do
with either fluoridation or fluoridedentifrice."In Grand Rapids, in
1945better
than 99% of the children examinedexperienced dental decay."
This
presented to us without any detailsregarding the age of the
children,
the size of the sample or whether thisis a mean or average. As
Sutton
pointed out, there was enormous variationin the size of samples so that
variation as well as examiner error madeexact determinations
impossible.If we accept that only one
child
in one hundred was caries-free, the nextstatement is deliberately
ambiguous.
"After the famed 'Grand Rapids Study,'dental decay plummeted 65%."
We have to ask: "where did this take place andwhen did this take place?"The figure probably comes from
the 1956 final report on the Grand RapidsStudy by Drs. F.A. Arnold,
H.T.
Dean et al. in Public Health Reports inwhich they stated: "In
children
born since fluoridation was put intoeffect, the caries rate for
the permanent teeth was reduced on the averageby about 60%."This claim has been used since
by the ADA, the WHO and other promoters; butsuch reduction, as we have
seen,
could be equally true of the children inMuskegon, the control that was
fluoridated before any proper comparisonscould be made.The studies made subsequent
to 1956, demonstrate that there has been ageneral decline in dental
caries
in the developed world and that the numberof decayed, missing and filled
teeth in children who had been fluoridatedall their lives are no fewer
than those children reared in non-fluoridatedareas.Several paragraphs of the
press
release tell us in gushing terms how"incredible" the "benefits"
are. The emotive statements tone down thereductions to "20 to 40%" and
inform us about "remineralization" ­p; nottelling us, of course, that
the original concept of "restructuring,'' therationalization for systemic
fluorides, has been abandoned.There is an appeal to adults
that fluoride helps decrease root decay forwhich properly structured
studies
are lacking. The press release lists anumber of organizations that,
it is implied, assure us that fluoridationcan benefit all "in a safe and
extremely cost-effective manner."When we know that fluoride
does
not prevent dental caries,cost-effectiveness is nill.
To the contrary, fluoridation is costing usdearly, more than we can
calculate
at the present time, to treat its dentaland other adverse effects.The figure given for cost
effectiveness
is calculated from the per capitaexpenditure for fluoridation
chemicals, the average cost of a filling and areduction in caries of 40%.
Most of which collapses like a deck of cardswhen it is recognized that the
reduction of caries is a "statisticalillusion.''Not illusory, however, is the
large amounts of taxpayers' money that isbeing spent to supply the
chemicals
for this purpose. If the hypothesiswere proven to be genuine, the
facts remain: for every $1,000 spent onchemicals, less than fifty
cents
goes to children and adverse effects onhumans and other creatures in
the ecosystem would greatly overbalance the"benefits.''The press release ends with
the "national health objective" for the year2000 to increase to at least
75% of the portion of US population served bycommunity water systems
providing
optimal levels of fluoride.In view of all the evidence
currently available, such contemplated actionis a disgrace!Dr. Herschel Horowitz, in a
paper published in the Journal of Public HealthDentistry (Vol 52, 4) in 1992,
stated: "When Grand Rapids, Michigan, beganto fluoridate its water supply
in 1945, relatively few other sources offluoride existed in the United
States. At that time only about 1.7% of theUS population lived in
communities
in which the natural amounts of fluoridein drinking water were at
optimal
or greater than optimal concentrationsand few food products had
appreciable
concentrations of fluoride, e.g. teaand seafood."He pointed out that by 1955,
more than 15% of the U.S. population hadaccess to drinking water with
optimal or greater concentrations offluoride; by 1965, 30%; by
1975,
49%. He estimated that at the time of hiswriting (1991), more than 130
million persons or 53% of the U.S. populationlived in areas with "optimal"
or greater concentrations of fluoride intheir drinking water.He recognized that this has
caused total fluoride consumption to rise inboth fluoridated and
non-fluoridated
areas because of the incorporation offluoride in beverages and
foods
prepared in fluoridated areas.In an editorial in Fluoride
(Vol 24 No 1) 1991, Roy R. Kintner reviewedstudies to that date of total
fluoride intake. A total intake baselineprior to fluoridation projects
in the U.S. was estimated at 0.45-0.55 mgfluoride per day for an adult.
These were based on studies predating 1950.Subsequent studies show
increases
in both fluoridated and non-fluoridatedareas. The rise in low
fluoride
cities "came about due to contamination offood and beverages through the
importation of commercial products producedand/or prepared in neighboring
communities when they adopted fluoridation."

Mean Adult Intake, 2.7mg
Fluoride

Kintner reported that the
mean
adult male intake, in a fluoridatedcommunity in 1991, was 2.7 mg
fluoride per day. The estimated dailyfluoride exposure for young
adults (11-19 years), adults (20-64 years) andmale adults (20-64 years) in
the upper 1st percentile were, in mean values,respectively: greater than 4.3
mg fluoride per day (mg F/day); greater than5.6 mg F/day; and, greater
than
6.0 mg F/day.Estimates presented in the
USPHS
publication Review of Fluoride Benefitsand Risks 1991 (tables 10 and
11) show that 2 year-old (20kg) children mayingest 2.3 mg F/day in low
fluoride
areas (less than 0.3 ppm) and 3.6 mgF/day in optimal (0.7-1.2 ppm)
fluoridated areas. These estimates includefluoride obtained from the use
of fluoride dentifrice twice a day andfluoride supplements (0.5
mg/day)
in low fluoride areas.It can be calculated from
these
tables that a 50 kg adult has a totalintake of 2.2 mg fluoride per
day in low fluoride areas and greater than6.0 mg fluoride per day in
optimal
fluoridated areas.The intake of a 200 pound (91
kg) male athlete or heavy industrial workerreplenishing himself with food
and water in a fluoridated area is,conceivably, in excess of 12
mg fluoride per day!Kinder points out that these
total intakes of fluoride places a significantportion of the U.S. population
at or above the 4-5 mg fluoride per daylevel. Dr. F.J. McClure in a
1945 paper published in the Journal ofIndustrial Hygiene and
Toxicology
recommended that this not be exceeded.It should come as no surprise
that children consuming these amounts offluoride during their
tooth-forming
years in both low fluoride andfluoridated areas develop
dental
fluorosis. In British Columbia, forexample, 65% of the children
in the sample from fluoridated Kelowna hadmild or moderate dental
fluorosis
of one or more tooth surfaces; innon-fluoridated Vernon, 55%
were similarly afflicted.Adults do not have a "marker"
of intoxication such as dental fluorosis tosignal a high level of
fluoride
intake.It may be the case that the
original dental and public health promoters didnot anticipate that their
actions
would raise total fluoride levels totheir present high values. In
their haste to initiate the artificialaddition of fluoride to
drinking
water, they failed to carry out theprojections required to
predict
the consequences. Lack of adequateinformation at the time may
excuse mistakes of the past; but failure tolearn from these mistakes and
take appropriate action could be interpretedas negligence.Dr. Horowitz and his fellow
fluoridation promoters consider the increasednumbers of fluoridated
communities
as "progress" along the path to asociety that will, ultimately,
be freed from tooth decay.Those who are familiar with
the historical development of the concept offluoridation and the evidence
of its lack of effectiveness and of itsadverse effects on teeth, the
skeletal system and soft tissues, mustdisagree.

Endemic Fluorosis

All of the evidence points
to
fluoridation as the deliberate creation inthe United States and
elsewhere
of an extensive area of endemic fluorosis.Endemic fluorosis, not dental
caries, is a major public health problem in1995. This could be as serious
as it is in China, India and elsewhere. Thepopulation at risk is more
than
130 million in the United States alone.The year 1995 does mark a 50th
anniversary. To anyone who knows the facts,this is not a celebration of
the conquest of tooth decay by some "magicbullet." It is an event
marking
the beginning of a period of fraud,deception and betrayal.There are those in the dental
profession who call for "a new baseline" or a"change in traditional
thinking"
and a general acceptance in ContinentalEurope that the systemic use
of fluoride to prevent dental caries is passé.There has been an obvious
switch
on the part of the ADA elite from the"structural" to the
"remineralization"
rationalization. However, in the US,Canada, Ireland and the United
Kingdom, orthodoxy regarding fluoridation isentrenched.Fluoridation, especially in
the United States, has been established as a"National Goal" or "Mission.''
Billions of taxpayers' dollars have beenspent over the past 50 years
to fulfill this mission. As is typical of somany government sponsored
endeavors,
this mission will continue even thoughthere is ample evidence that
the fluoride-caries hypothesis is invalid andthat fluoridation has created
a major public health problem, endemicfluorosis. And, in spite of
the fact that fluoridation poses a definitethreat to the environment.Only the withdrawal of public
support can end such an institutionalizedgovernment program as
fluoridation,
supported as it is by professionalelites. Dr. Horowitz is
correct.
The public will call for a halt tofluoridation when they learn
that the program is a misuse of increasinglyscarce resources. The program
is a failure and costing us dearly in termsof treatment for adverse
effects
and losses in the ecosystem due tofluoride pollution.How can the public continue
support once they learn that dental fluorosisis not merely cosmetic but a
sign that we have poisoned our children? Howcan they continue support when
they learn that the adverse effects offluoride are well-founded,
especially
when total fluoride intake isconsidered?There is a disturbing tendency
on the part of many in the researchcommunity to search only for
"positive" results. These, especially whenthey deal with human health,
are more likely than "negative" findings tolead to the staking out of a
special territory. Cynthia Crossen, in herbook Tainted Truth, the
Manipulation
of Fact in America (Simon andSchuster, 1994) presents many
examples of cases in which this has occurred;for example, the "Oat Bran
Miracle"
that wasn't.Once an idea such as "1 ppm
fluoride, artificially added to drinking water,prevents dental caries"
becomes
desired territory, only those studiessupporting or enhancing it are
the coin of the realm. Research thatproduces results that are
contrary
is dross. If the research does notsupport the hypothesis, the
latter remains sound but the research "doesn'twork.''The early research of Dean and
others are examples of manipulating theresults, either intentionally
or through ignorance of scientific method toobtain positive support for
the hypothesis underlying fluoridation.The "trials" in Rapid City,
Evanston, etc. were a graphic example ofresearch that "didn't work."
Again, either through ineptitude or calumny.Some defenders have intimated
that these were not scientific studies tocompare the results of a
fluoridated
population with controls, but weredemonstrations that fluoride
could indeed be added to the water supplywithout any immediate
mechanical
problems or apparent adverse effects.Like any commercial product,
fluoridation has been promoted over the pastfifty years to the point that
to millions it is "truth."Built upon the early
trumpeting
of the power of fluoride to banish toothdecay, a number of
applications
have arisen over the past half century:dentifrices for use in the
home
and in the dental office; oral fluoridetablets, drops and mouth
rinses.The companies
manufacturing/marketing
these products commission their ownresearch and fund dental
meetings
on the subject. The list of corporatesponsors of the International
Conference held in Pine Mountain, Georgiathat has been referred to a
number of times in this article, includes manyfamiliar names:
Chesebrough-Ponds;
Unilever; Johnson and Johnson; Procterand Gamble; Colgate-Palmolive;
Bristol Myers; and others. One other namethat has an interest and
publishes
a magazine for dentists is the PrincetonResource Center; this has
nothing
to do with the university of the samename but is financed by
M&M/Mars.Standing in the background
letting
others work for them are thoseindustries that supply the raw
materials used for fluoridation or whobenefit from the image of
fluoride
as benign. Without fluoridation,millions of tons of
hydrofluosilicic
acid would have to be funneled intoholding ponds and treated at
great expense, rather than have it turn aprofit.Smelter operators, faced with
legal suits concerning fluoride damage to theecosystem, including humans,
can shrug their shoulders and say "it's goodfor children's teeth, isn't
it?"

Additional references for
studies
cited in the text available on request.